미국 전문가 "한국군 전작권 전환이 한미동맹을 '풀어헤치지' 않을 것"

Prosecutors seek 3-year term for man in Suwon cafe groping case

A US expert said Thursday that the transfer of wartime operational control to South Korea from the United States would not "unzip" the bilateral alliance, downplaying concerns that the move could weaken America's security commitment to the Asian ally.

Bruce Klingner, senior fellow at the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation, made the remarks during a forum, citing Washington's pledge to offer "enduring" defense capabilities to South Korea, the bilateral mutual defense treaty and the presence of around 28,500 American troops on the Korean Peninsula, to name a few.

"OPCON transition, in and of itself, doesn't unzip the alliance because under the existing OPCON agreement, we pledge to provide bridging capabilities, and then, even after OPCON transition, enduring capabilities," Klingner said at the forum co-hosted by the Hudson Institute and the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.

"And then beyond that, we still remain bound to South Korea's defense by the mutual defense treaty, our continuing responsibilities on the peninsula as commander of UN Command, and also the continuing presence of our forces on the (Korean) Peninsula," he added.

Bridging capabilities refer to short-term measures intended to help fill security or defense gaps during a transitional period.

After OPCON transfer, a South Korean general is set to lead the two allies' combined forces with a US general playing a supporting role. Currently, a US general leads the combined forces with a South Korean general serving as the deputy commander.

The shift in the command structure might be a divisive issue in the US, but Klingner pointed out a difference between operational control and "operational command."

Operational control is limited authority for specific operations without full administrative or organizational authority, while operational command is more comprehensive and fuller military authority.

"(US forces) would always be under OPCON, but never under operational command. It might seem like a nuance, but it's very important because the US would never relinquish command of its authorities," he said.

The expert cited a US presidential directive, signed in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, which states the president retains and will never relinquish command authority over US forces, but as commander in chief, the president has the authority to place US forces under the operational control of a foreign commander.

"US forces have been placed under the OPCON of foreign commanders since the Revolutionary War, World War I, World War II, Operation Desert Storm, et cetera," he said.

He assessed that the two allies now have "the greatest potential" for OPCON transition happening, as South Korean President Lee Jae Myung's administration seeks to retake wartime OPCON before the end of its term in 2030, and President Donald Trump's administration seeks to reduce US security responsibilities abroad.

During a House Armed Services Committee hearing last week, Gen. Xavier Brunson, commander of US Forces Korea, said that Seoul and Washington aim to meet conditions required for the OPCON transfer no later than the first quarter of 2029.

South Korea handed over OPCON during the 1950-53 Korean War. It retook peacetime OPCON in 1994, but wartime OPCON still remains in US hands. (Yonhap)